wait

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions waiting for a condition but doesn't disclose how it behaves (e.g., polling frequency, blocking nature, error handling, or what happens on timeout). For a tool with potential side effects like blocking execution, this is inadequate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('wait for a condition') and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a waiting/monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like blocking vs. non-blocking. For a tool that interacts with dynamic resources, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (resource, name, condition, namespace, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'waits for a condition on a resource', which is a clear verb+action but lacks specificity about what kind of resources or conditions are involved. It doesn't distinguish itself from potential siblings like 'rollout-status' or 'debug-pod' that might also involve waiting or monitoring. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare to siblings like 'describe-pod' for status checks. Usage is implied (e.g., for monitoring resource states) but not articulated, leaving gaps for an agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.